Pennsylvania Voter Law Outrage: People Buying Guns Should Sue Over ID Requirement Because It Places Impossible Burden On 2nd Amendment Rights

“… the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” — 2nd Amendment

Only that right IS being infringed, and infringed massively. Don’t believe me? Just listen to Democrats talk about the impossible barrier of trying to provide an ID to vote.

If it’s so hard to provide an ID to exercise my right to vote, then how the hell am I supposed to be able to produce one to exercise my right to buy a gun – said right being one that government isn’t supposed to be able to infringe?

If Democrats are right in protecting voters from meeting such a difficult burden, it means that Democrats are treasonous, Constitution-trampling fascists who have fundamentally and profoundly violated the 2nd Amendment.

A Pennsylvania judge on Tuesday blocked the state from enforcing its strict voter ID law before the presidential election, citing “disenfranchisement” concerns. The ruling in a vital battleground state comes five weeks before the election.

The ruling, which could still be appealed, followed two days of testimony about the state’s efforts to make it easier to get a valid photo ID, as well as possible hurdles for those seeking proper identification.

The challenge to the six-month-old law is one of several across the country to laws — largely backed by Republican legislators — requiring voters to show photo identification.

Republicans say the laws are necessary to prevent election fraud. But Democrats, who in Pennsylvania joined up with the AARP and NAACP in opposition, claim residents could be blocked from exercising their right to vote.

Judge Robert Simpson said in his opinion Tuesday he anticipates that by Election Day, “the gap between the photo IDs issued and the estimated need will not be closed.”

He added: “Consequently, I am not still convinced in my predictive judgment that there will be no voter disenfranchisement arising out of the Commonwealth’s implementation of a voter identification requirement for purposes of the upcoming election.”

The ruling blocks the law before November, but would still allow it to go into effect next year. Shannon Royer, the state’s deputy secretary of state, said officials are “reviewing all legal options” but said the state is “pleased” the law itself was upheld.

“Under today’s ruling, voter ID will be implemented on a different timeframe. This November, all voters will be asked to show photo ID when they vote, though it will not be required,” she said in a statement.

The law was already a partisan lightning rod when a top Republican lawmaker boasted over the summer that it would allow Republican nominee Mitt Romney to beat Democratic President Obama in Pennsylvania.

Republicans, long suspicious of ballot-box stuffing in the Democratic bastion of Philadelphia, justified the law as a protection against potential election fraud.

Critics claim it could suppress minority turnout.

The plaintiffs — a group of registered voters, plus the Homeless Advocacy Project, the League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania chapter of the NAACP — had sought to block the law from taking effect in this year’s election as part of a wider challenge to its constitutionality.

The judge’s decision Tuesday could be appealed to the state Supreme Court, but it could easily be the final word on the law before the Nov. 6 election.

The constitutionality of the law was not a question before the judge.

Other states face similar debates over voting.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID law in 2008, and Georgia’s top court upheld that state’s voter ID law. But a federal panel struck down Texas’ voter ID law, and the state court in Wisconsin has blocked its voter ID laws for now. The Justice Department cleared New Hampshire’s voter ID law earlier this year.

Now here’s the damn deal: either recognize that photo IDs are a part of life today such that you can’t go visit Eric Holder’s Justice Department without having to show one, and you can’t go inside the Democrat National Convention without showing one, or you decide that it is such an impossible burden to meet which becomes a barrier to people being able to exercise their rights that we do away with the requirement to keep and bear arms.

Do I HAVE a right to visit the Justice Department? Do I have a right to access a government courtroom? I’ve got to show an ID to get in, you know. And thus according to Democrats, I have been denied my right to access the government. Just as I have been denied the right to access the goods and services of a free market because try to buy a TV without having to show an ID these days.

This is really a pretty asinine argument.

The problem, of course, is that Democrats are pure, distilled hypocrite in meat suits, and if you were to lock a Democrat in a room and sterilize hypocrisy from that room, you would find nothing but empty clothes. Because if you take the hypocrite out of a Democrat, there’s nothing left of that Democrat.

Which is why the same Democrats that are literally doing everything they can to ensure that voter fraud can prevail among black and Hispanic areas (because such groups tend to vote Democrat) have likewise done everything they can to disenfranchise active duty military personnel from voting (because such members tend to vote Republican).

The right to vote is a dangerous thing; the Nazi Party (not to mention George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama) were elected into power. It seems to me that ensuring that only authorized persons be allowed to vote is every as reasonable as ensuring that only authorized persons are allowed to exercise other rights.

I hope the next guy who is asked to show an ID when trying to buy a gun sues because it’s just too darn difficult a burden for him to provide and therefore his 2nd Amendment right has been violated. And to prove that it is an impossible burden, all you’d have to do is start quoting the statements of Democrats and the decisions of liberal judges.

As long as there is a liberal judge who believes that the law is basically whatever the hell he or she wants it to be at any given time, the Constitution loses, the law loses and the American people lose.

When a conservative said that the law was intact, it just wouldn’t be enforced this election, my immediate thought was, “All they NEED is to win this election and they won’t HAVE to worry about the law.”